>> the quester happened. oh, no, i guess. 63% of americans think the sequester is a bad thing. that's interesting. considering out of those over 140 million americans like four of them know what the hell the sequester is. we get the brood stroke a bunch of lawmakers failed to come to a compromise, so a lot of money disappeared and suddenly get this, the air sport pain. that would be weird. but it is impossible to retain the specifics of the sequester. it's like the neuralizer for men in black somebody could explain it to you word for word and the moment they walk away it's like what is my name? who are you? tommy lee jones. and each side is trying to blame the other for bungling the job. here is the problem, we don't know what a good job would look

like. these crises have gotten so convoluted it is like season 4 of lost all over again, the audience has checked out, and we're pretty sure even the behind it all know what the hell is going on. yes, we elected you, but that makes us voter, not fiscal experts. you know what else makes us voters signing a form outside of the supermarket and being as old as the movie babe. and this is exactly like watching a pig try to round up a herd of sheep. but in this case that won't do, pig, that won't do. pig-ure it out. i'm done talking now. >> michael: someone is always in our war room. check us out at current.com/thewarroom. and check out our exclusive web

extras. thank for joining us here in "the war room." cenk uygur is fact with "the young turks" next. blooip did the president not think it's incumbent on him to not bring home-- >> cenk: ted cruz for asking the right questions of holder and rand paul for standing up? where are the democrats? only one has stood up so far. i'll tell you who that is. and then bill o'reilly loses it,

as usual, on fox news. >> you are lying. >> don't sit there and call me a lying. >> you're lying. >> i'm not lying. >> you don't like what he's doing, but don't call me a liar. >> i am. >> cenk: we'll talk about that and then hunger in america, not often talked about but incredibly important. we used to be able to fix it. now, of course we're not even trying. >> patriotism, really, the country is doing this to our kids, we would be at war. it doesn't have to be that way. >> cenk: i'm back, and it's go time. [ ♪ music ♪ ] >> cenk: all right we're here at "the young turks"," and it's both frustrated and excited about what's happening in the senate today. i'm frustrated that the white house with promises of change,

and no such thing. there are dick cheney policies and worse. attorney general said yes i did not stutter, we can execute u.s. citizens and we don't have to give them a trial. of all people, rand paul stands up. they now have been doing a filibuster led by rand paul as you see there for eight hours joined by eight different senators to help them along by asking questions of. of those eight senators only one is a democrat, and he deserves a lot of credit. there he is. where are the other senators? where are the other democrats? where are the so-called progressives? where are the so-called liberals of the senate. where is elizabeth warren, where is burnie sanders.

i'll talk to you in a second about what he thinks about this. there he is live, rand paul still going. i disagree with rand paul in a hundred different ways but god bless him for standing up on this. >> it's equivalent to making war on the country than the johnson and nixon administrations should have bombed every elite college in america in the early 1960s. >> cenk: now, look he mentioned nixon there. do you remember what nixon famously said and got in a world of trouble for basically if the president does it then it is legal. eric holder saying similar things about executive pow and he famously said due process is not necessarily judicial process. in other words, a bunker of people in the executive branch get together, and if they decide to execute you sad day for you. we call that due process. i believe we fought a revolution over that. that goes back all the way to

the magna carta. here is one of the worst attorney generals we've ever had. worst of my lifetime, and yes i'm counting ashcroft and gonzalez in that. ashcroft stood up for the constitution holder than never done. let me read to you from his letter. he says, it is possible--about executing u.s. citizens on u.s. soil--i suppose the to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the constitution and applicable laws of the united states for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within this territory of the united states. for example the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force as necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the one suffered on december 7 1941, and september 11 2011.

nice touch bringing fear mongering in it. on september 11th tea 11th we arrested a whole bunch of muslims who were innocent. we would have executed them and then, whoops, it turns out they were innocent. this is grotesque. let's bring you michael shure and luke from the "huffington post." luke, let me start with you. see if you can answer the question for me that i've been asking all day on twitter and here as you saw in the first segment. where are the so-called progressive democrats who would have been on fire if this was the bush administration? >> well, i mean, i think civil liberties aren't really a left-right issue. i mean, many democrats were criticizing the bush administration--almost all democrats were criticizing the

bush administration 2005-2007 when bush was unpopular. but many of them were doing it just for political reasons. and obama inherited that legal architecture. many of those democrats have become silent. so now what you see in the senate is that it takes someone like rand paul, it takes someone like a ted cruz to criticize the president on executive power. >> cenk: yeah, i mean, we're left with mr. holmes to stand up for the constitution. sad day in america. i have a technical question here. rand paul is doing the filibuster. the other seven senators who have joined in a sense in the conversation are not technically doing a filibuster. they just happen to be helping him pass the time. is that roughly right? >> yeah, that's roughly right. i think that this is rand paul, and he's yielding the floor to them without giving up his full rights.

so someone like marco rubio didn't fully join in. he didn't even say what the president was doing was problematic. surely harry reid did not join in on the filibuster when he tried to interrupt it. this is unusual, and the last time there was a talking filibuster was with bernie saunders. >> cenk: i would like to see burnie again. michael, let me go to you. i love that rand paul is doing this. i'm curious what your take is, and why if you've got an opinion on why the democrats are conspicuously silent on this. >> there is a multi senator filibuster that sanders did a single filibuster record, and strom thurmond. yet, you know, i guess i'm not as on fire as you about this.

there is a little bit of gray area here. you have a president who is allowed to--the u.s. president not just president obama--allowed to send in f-15s, waco, ruby ridge. that is on american soil against americans. that's part of what the president is allowed to do. i think drones brings up an entirely different conversation. when you ask where are the democrats? where are the civil libertarians? luke's right civil libertarians come in different stripes. right now they don't want to associate themselves with this guy, who we talked about over and over again, who is a crack pot on most issues. just not on this one that you happen to agree with him. >> cenk: i don't care what his opinions are, you can call him whatever you like, but here he's a constitutional hero. >> let me disagree with that. >> cenk: hold on, okay, look, first of all what you brought

up i got to address it. waco, we go in and we say we believe you're doing something illegal. you need to surrender. if they don't surrender yes then in that case people die sometimes. but we're not talking about that scenario. we're talking about a scenario where we say i'm not giving a chance to surrender. i'm not giving you your rights. i'm dropping a bomb on you and executing you. that's a totally different scenario. >> michael: we also have the right for police to fire guns and we're not up in arms about that. >> cenk: that's what i'm saying, michael. >> michael: cenk, cenk, cenk. >> cenk: there is a cop coming up in the middle of the street executing someone before they say surrender. >> michael: this is in the constitution. the president is constitutionally entitled to protect americans on americans soil. so if that is-- >> cenk: that's nonsense. that's so wrong. >> michael: so, but it is-- >> cenk: hey, i got to protect people.

you're a crazy dangerous liberal in a war room. can he execute you tomorrow. >> michael: cenk, the constitution is a broad document. that's one of the beauties and the problems with the constitution. when you say that's so broad you're right, it is so broad. but it's broadness is why you have rand paul in the well filibustering on this and talking about changing changing it. it's an outrage that there aren't democrats and other republicans there. he is talking about how this is a conversation we need to have in america. you're not wrong about that, to say it's not constitutional is not really accurate. >> cenk: that's why you're 100% about that. i love you but you're 100% wrong. >> michael: i love you but you're 100% wrong. >> cenk: that yes, sir we arrested jose pedea we held him

in yale for years. this is saying we can do worse. we can execute jose pedea and say, o he was a dirty bomber, trust us. you do you remember what happened? it turns out he wasn't a dirty bomber. they were lying. >> michael: that's why it was worse. >> the administration has offer nod justification for this policy. that's why you're seeing such an emotional debate. after a drone strike killed the son of al-a lawalaki. we haven't had this discussion in public. the obama administration has not discussed it in public, and it's inherently an emotional issue as we can see. >> cenk: i don't want people to mislead--it's not a matter of emotion. it's a matter of the constitution. it doesn't matter if you're a

republican democrat, libertarian, do you care about the constitution or not. we'll update you on that because harry reid spoke earlier and of course he was trying to destroy in filibuster for his beloved dear leader president obama. sherrod brown i spoke to him in washington, d.c. when i was in washington. he is a senator and one of the most progressive senators in the country. here's what he had to say about the drone strikes on u.s. oil. >> do you object to those programs, and if so, how is it possible to lead the direction in the right directiondirection--lead the president in the right direction on those issues. >> i think this drone issue we've got to make sure that it's got the kinds of safeguards, the president has a lot of power and authority to move on a lot of this stuff. he's generally done war and

peace issues pretty well, civil liberties pretty well but there has not been much light between what bush did and what obama has done. >> do you agree or disagree of drone strikes of u.s. citizens on u.s. soil without a trial. >> cenk: no, he's saying on foreign soil on u.s. soil it's worse. luke, thank you for being with us. but we're out of time. sander bernie sanders senator elizabeth warren. where are you? are you just team players or do you care about the constitution? all right, thank you both, guys, we appreciate it. when we come back. >> thankthank you for having me. >> cenk: absolutely. when we come back we've got more from senator brown. there is a lot i agree with him on. some, of course as i call him out to get in there, it's been going for eight hours now.

we'll keep tabs on that filibuster too. >> remarks by several senior officials. we welcome and appreciate these disclosures, it only provides limited information.

>> cenk: all right, we're back on "the young turks"." rand paul still going. this is how a filibuster should be done. i want to reform the filibuster so you have to talk it through. that's what rand paul is doing today. by the way look, man just because you agree with rand paul on one thing doesn't mean you have to agree with him on everything. ted cruz grilled eric holder today in a very appropriate manner. ted cruz otherwise is insane. when they're standing up for the right thing you got to have their back.

this isn't about party politics. this isn't about whose team is winning. this is about america and you care about it, and can you get true bipartisanship. rand paul sending out a message that he's brought of his son for standing up as he sass, and i am too and now we turn to another issue of bipartisanship. do you believe in miracles? well, senator sherrod brown and i sat down yesterday in washington, d.c. he's one of the most progressive senators in the country. he's now joining up with david bitter one of the most conservative senators, a republican from louisiana going after big banks going after too big to fail. >> how in the world did you get senator david vitter on board. >> people across the political spectrum understand the size of these banks gives them the advantage in the market rates lower interest rates and they're able to do things that

are anti-competitive because of their size. these are banks that go from $600 billion in assets to $2.4 trillion. i think vitter can speak for himself, but he is--he sees the damage it does to our economy let alone if something happens and these banks fail. any one of these banks fails. what it does to the economy. >> what percentage of the republican party do you think they can bring onto this m. >> we're talking about ten senator republicans who are interested in a variety of different ways of doing this, but when i have had this amendment three years ago to the so-called dodd-frank bill, we only 30-some odd votes. we have to get more democrats. this speaks of upper class action. this place is still republicans worse, democrats, too, too close to wall street in some cases and this will be an uphill fight because of the power of the

banks. not just economic power but political power, top of regulation that they say would harm them i say would help the public. we were able to get them on dodd-frank to do some things that they didn't want to do but not nearly enough. >> where do you think the obama administration stands on this? >> i'm not clear. they were not supportive of our efforts to break up the banks last night an limit the amount of debt that a bank could hold as a more precise definition, but we're going to keep talking to him. i talked to the secretary treasury and it was considered a radical move three years ago. it's not now. it's more and more mainstream as more conservative and liberal economists both saying it's not good to to allow this amount of concentration among the banks.

>> it's not encouraging yet with them. this is pushing a heavy boulder up a hill, but you know, to give an example, 18 years ago the largest six banks total assets were 18% of gdp. today they're 63% of gdp. the size of these banks is such that they have a control and a roll and far too much in the economy for them to be healthy. i think some conservative senators are beginning to come on board because they see this as a real threat to what they think capitalism should be, and capitalism should be where the markets get to work, and without--in a way that a few people don't have control. >> and too big to fail as a government subsidy. >> right now the largest banks when they borrow money when they go on the capital budgets and they borrow money, they can get it for as much as 1% less

than a small banker or immediate-sized regional bank like in ohio. that 1% is a lot of money saved. they think bloomberg did a study that the savings or the profits or the subsidies, call it what you want, for those six big banks comes out to $80 billion a year. look at what sequestration was almost that exact amount. that's a lot of money to split among six banks because they're too big to fail. >> cenk: now part of the reason that i love this conversation is because it's so telling. if you're listening to the details you can pick up where everybody stands on the different issues. if you noticed there look at this topsy-turvy world. in this case senator david vitter is more progressive on the banks than the obama administration. the obama administration with time geithner and now with jack lew and treasury saying we have to protect the banks.

our beloved cherished banks not break them up. now you have republicans saying this is a free market principle. comeing to a position that is more progressive than the obama administration. you wonder why i think obama is a right-winger. i talked to sherrod brown more about the grand bargaining and medicare. listen to the details here. where is the red line and what is the president going to do. >> alan grayson's letter on the house, the house side, he said he wants progressives to sign on saying no cuts for social security medicare, medicaid under any deal. do you agree with that, or do you think that that's putting too harsh of a red line. >> i want to trust the president mostly on this, but i also draw the lines, too. for instance, i was in youngstown in a town hall maybe two years ago and a woman stood

up, she said, i'm 63 years old. i just want to stay alive for another year and a half so i can get health insurance. that's what her focus in life was, to stay alive. we have no business raising retirement age for social security and medicare. >> that's a red line? >> people who dress like this and work wherever, they can work until maybe 70 sometimes. but a lot of us, could. but someone who works in a factory, works construction, works in a retail operation cleaning hotels, waiting tables, they can't work until their 70 in most cases. we have no business raising retirement age and inflicting them with that. >> how about change cpi. >> i think there may be--i don't know what the president's got to give to this crowd to get them to do what we need for more progressive taxes. that's why i don't want to close the door on anything. i don't want to change cpi. i don't want to raise the

retirement age. we could raise the cap on social security. >> the payroll cap. >> yes know that the payroll cap so the upper income people would pay more. social security is not in the troubled condition that the conservatives like to say. you start off they don't like medicare and social security. from their inception conservatives don't think that government should play a role in retirement and healthcare the way social security and medicare do. they would try to come in from every angle every chance they get. >> isn't there some irony in the president and mitt romney, republicans and democrats before the elections saying oh, the other side is trying to cut medicare. then they turn around right after the election and they both talk about cutting medicare. >> that's why we make sure that the president does the right thing on this. >> good luck on that. i'm a little more skeptical on it than you. >> cenk: for good reason, the president has offered cuts to medicare and social security. now sherrod brown saying his red

line is that he will not agree to anything where you raise the eligibility age for those two programs. that's good. but if you noticed he said he does not have a red line on changing cpi. meaning they could cut social security and he could sign onto it. all that progressive talk before the election and right after what do they do? they want to cut social security. they want to cut medicare. sherrod doesn't want to cut it. he might sign on to that deal. the president has been chomping at the bit all along. he bragged earlier in the news, hey, we already offered to cut social security. congratulations to you. that's a huge bragging right. change we can believe in. by the way update on the filibuster, rand paul is offering a deal to harry reid saying i will stop this filibuster and allow the vote on john brennan as head of the c.i.a. if you'll allow a vote on

my resolution on the drone. that's a reasonable request. let's see if harry reid is going to do it or if he'll keep covering the president's ass. hunger in american. we used to do something about it. >> it's a problem that people are ashamed of acknowledging. >> what are we going to do. >> this generation will live sicker and die younger. >> hunger right here in the united states. >> the problem is getting worse. hershey's simple pleasures chocolate. 30% less fat, 100% delicious.

"no, save 300 bucks over here!" "wait, save 400 bucks right here." with so many places offering so much buck-saving, where do you start? well, esurance was born online raised by technology and majors in efficiency. so they're actually built to save you money... and time... and whiplash. esurance. now backed by allstate. click or call.

>> we're back on "the young turks" and more than 50 million americans don't get enough food to eat. hunger has gotten so bad, we've changed the name. it's called food insecurity. interesting. there is an organization called "place at the table" has a documentary. >> the reason people are going hungry is not because of shortage of food but poverty. >> the average food stamps is $3

a day and you can't live on that. >> if you have a limited amount of money you're going to spend it on the cheapest food you can get, that's processed food. >> my dream is to go to college but i can't tell my kids, we'll make sure that you eat in two years. >> we put hunger on the national agenda. >> we almost eliminated hunger in the 1970s. >> political will can work. >> to make a difference in our country. >> it's about patriotism really. the. >> cenk: the dude, you got to listen to the dude. we'll bring in documentary filmmaker let me read you some stats. one in six are food insecure.

one in four children are food insecure. and there is a lot we can draw from that. let hey start from a random questions. food insecure. are we happy with that or is that goofy as a word? >> initially my partner my codirector and i, we were a little bit leary of the term. it seemed like one of those bush-era euphemism so you wouldn't have to say the word "hungry," but we've come to embrace the term, and i'll tell you why. in the u.s. hunger does not look like like it does in sub-sahara africa. there are not the swollen bellies or swollen cheeks, and it does not come to the feeling of starvation but it's a continue in which somebody may not be able to feed themselves or their family at any given time. and it means they don't have sufficient food and have to spend a good portion of their life searching scrounging,

scrambling for food. it has huge ramifications in accompanying depression, anxiety and emotional consequences on top of the health, and on top of the cognitive problems that can create in children and the obvious problems that it causes to our healthcare in everything else. >> cenk: so lori, what does it take to qualify one meal, two meals, is there a standard? >> i don't know if there is a specific standard, but i can tell you this, 50 million americans right now at any given point of the month don't know how they're going to feed themselves or their children. i think they could tell you very clearly that it's a condition that they grapple with if not every day most days. some of the days of the month even that's too much. we're the nation with the most food of any country on earth. this is not an issue of food scarcities. if this was a country where it was a struggle to grow food, we

export food for the entire world. we have enough calories to feed every american double the calories that they need to lead a healthy lifestyle. this is outrageous. >> cenk: some conservative talk those hosts like rush limbaugh, why don't they just go to their fridge and get the food. >> yes, he knows a thing or two about that, i guess. >> cenk: he would right. so would i on the other hand. but as we just pointed out, 85% of these folks have jobs. they just don't have enough money to get food security. >> exactly, cenk. >> cenk: it's not like they're bums like the right wingers are making them out to be. >> exactly. 80% of families on food assistance programs have an adult at home. and 75% of those adults adults are working full time. there is a false vocabulary

between takers and people mooching off of society. i'm sick of it. it substitutes for meaningful debate of how we got here, how we can fix it, and what's going on. it's much easier to blame people and then move on to the next thing you want to tuck into your belt. >> cenk: 31.6 million or 30% of all the kids, it's an amazing number receive free school lunches and they served more than 5 billion lunches in 2010. we're serving a lot of folks there. is that enough? if it's not enough, why not? >> well, first of all we could be feeding many more. we do know that participation is not up to what it could be based on the amount of people who are receiving federal food assistance elsewhere, snap wic benefits. there is a lot of stigma associated with school meals.

many make breakfast but participation is very low because many states don't bother to opt in. they leave federal money on the table and don't bother to feed their kids even though studies show that kids do much better in every test, every measurement available they do better when eating breakfast. we're not doing well enough right now on this, i don't think think. >> cenk: i understand that your husband is a top chef, why doesn't he feed them. >> he has tried honestly, for the last 30 years he has been doing fundraisers charity doing everything he can along with almost all the chefs in this country. they have taken this matter very seriously. and they've been working very hard to raise money. and it happens for food banks pantries. they've never raised more money than they are right now. and there's never been more hunger than there is right now. there is a lot of disconnect

right. >> cenk: for those at home who don't know, tell us who he is and what charities he runs. >> my husband is tom callecio, one of the judges on top chef and he has restaurant in new york and around the country. what people don't know about him is he has been an activist in this space for a very long time. he started to get really frustrated. if you're raising so much money and the president problem is only getting worse, then you have to ask yourself what is going on. and for me watching him that no one was even asking the questions. we go to these big galas and we feel so good and we said this many thousand and this many thousand. then we getting to home and feel good for ourselves. but what about the next day and the next day after that. why are we not asking what is going on and why are we needing to do this to feed the people in the wealthiest nation. >> cenk: what is one thing you would change if you could to get

more food security in america? >> well, you know what, shockingly, we have a member of congress tell us that if six people in his district call him about an issue he changes how he votes. because he assumes a couple of thousand people aren't calling who feel the same way. what they told us when we were on the hill, and we filmed it amen. they said people are not calling. they're not tweeting, we're not texting. if we start to hear from americans about this, we have to do better. we have great programs that can fix this. we need to get behind them. call, tweet, go to our web page and learn more about it. simple, simple answer. >> cenk: lori silver bush. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> cenk: when we come back we'll talk about hugo chavez, some upsides an some down sides. we'll weigh both of those.

and then rand paul entering his ninth hour of the filibuster, an update on that as well. maximum strength scalpicin® is not

a shampoo so you can stop intense itch fast, wherever you are. i dropped the itch. drop the itch with scalpicin®.

>> it's not enough to say that i don't intend to break the constitution. you know, you either believe in the constitution or you don't. >> cenk: rand paul, a nice hour of the filibuster, go rand, go. if you asked me which senator i would have been most excited about, i would not have guessed rand paul and i would have been wrong. on to hugo chavez. if you haven't noticed, he passed away, of course. the president of venezuela. lots of upsides and down sides. here is a quick report from "abc news"." >> reporter: overnight thousands gathered in venezuela's capital

to mourning the only leader many have ever known. the largest provider of oil in u.s. is in political flux. late tuesday california's hand pick successor accusing two u.s. attache a against the army. >> cenk: he's thinking that the cancer is brought on by something that the u.s. did. that's a little crazy but we did participate in a coup against hugo chavez in 2002. so they have a right to be a little conspiracial against the u.s. one of the world's

most oil rich with large number of its citizens living in some of the latin america's most violent slums. that is true, but we're twice as unequal here in the u.s. look at that chart. venezuela, according to the ratios they use on inequality 4.4, the united states is 16.0. we're number one! if we think that hugo chavez did a terrible job with income and even equality, get a load of our leaders. i bring in david sirota author of "back to our future," and many more to come. david, a complicated character hugo chavez. what do we make of him? what is your immediate analysis here? >> well, look, hugo chavez on human rights, on democratic rights, on press freedom is no saint. i think we need to acknowledge that at the very beginning. this is a guy who while he was certainly democratically

elected, nobody takes issue with that he's a guy who was not--he had a tenuous relationship with basic, small democratic freedoms. the united states has a tenuous relationship with basic small democratic freedoms. i tell everybody in the united states watch about throwing stones from a glass house when throwing rocks on those issues. but california chavez has become a cartoon. he was an outspoken socialist. the reason why he was demonized as a villain as opposed a president of a country we didn't get along with was because he was a socialist who produced stunning results when it came to the economy. this is a guy who more than half the poverty rate in his country. he oversaw having the infant

mortality rate in his country. he oversaw the country in the beginning was much more unequal than it was and far more equal. it's not completely equal but far more economyically equal than it was. he is a man who doesn't want questions asked on free market fundamentalist as soon as i see what you're saying on numbers because i got it from your article, but poverty was 23.4%. now it's just at 8.5%. that looks really good. but on the other hand, look, venezuela is very oil rich and found more oil during the hugo chavez years. so--and did he some programs where he did land grabs from private folks. i'm not sure that those worked out very well, and i'm not sure i'm in favor of those. isn't it more of a mixed bag

than that graph indicates? >> it certainly is a mixed bag. i'm not saying that the united states should champion chavez's entire program, but we live in a country that has refused to have a discussion about public ownership, for instance, of things that were already publicly subsidizing. we publicly subsidize in massive amounts the oil industry. we publicly subsidize our banking industry, and we don't get much back, knacks those industries wreak economic havoc on us. and i'm not saying that we should do what they did, but they went in a different direction when it came to their oil industry, and banking industry sometimes using nationalization and it produced results that were very good for a lot of very poor people. was it perfect? absolutely not. is it exactly what we should do?

absolutely not. but i think we should look soberly at that record and ask whether there is anything constructive we can learn from it. >> cenk: david, before we let go rand paul, are you in favor of his filibuster? >> absolutely. i think this is one of the most encouraging things we've seen in this congress. rand paul, look, i disagree with him on a lot of economic issues, but we need more conservatives and progressives to stand up and say civil liberties are important. we're talking about that with hugo chavez and a country that can't really criticize hugo chavez for his civil liberties problems because we're a countries engageing in drone wars and a war on voting. what i would like to see out of the filibuster i'm wondering if there are any democratic senators who will have the guts to stand up with rand paul. that's what is missing right now. >> cenk: where is bernie elizabeth warren. >> where is any of them. >> cenk: david sirota, engaging and interesting as always. thank you.

>> thank you. >> cenk: when we come back bill o'reilly loses it, but it's fun. >> give me one damn program he said he would cut. >> he said entitlements. >> not entitlements. one program. >> why are you yelling. >> because you're lying.

>> cenk: back on "the young turks." there they go again at fox news, bill o'reilly had alan combs to yell at him. i enjoy a bit of yelling from time to time. but the problem with bill o'reilly he's completely and utterly wrong. >> give me one damn program he said he would cut. >> he cut entightments. >> not entightments, one program. >> why are you yelling? >> you're lying. >> don't call me a liar. don't sit there and call me a liar. if you don't like the president if you don't like what he's doing, but don't sit there and call me a liar. we can have a disagreement without you calling may liar.

>> you're lying. >> i'm not lying. >> there is a difference between having a disagreement and calling me a liar. >> this is why i'm calling you a liar. tell me one program he said he will cut. >> he would cut medicare and medicaid. you asked me a program. those are programs. >> cenk: how is medicare and medicaid not programs. the president would cut funds to programs, i don't agree with any of those cuts. the president is a right winger who wants to do those cuts if you ask me, but for o'reilly to claim that he doesn't want to do those cuts is actually totally incan correct. at the time, there is a new biography coming out. it's not an auto biography but wently zeb chafetz.

as you can see he's almost glowing on the cover there but there are interesting tidbits about the book. let's bring out jeremy holden to talk about the book. let's starts with bill o'reilly and alan combs. why did bill o'reilly lose it there. >> look cenk, thank you for having me on. but that's what happens when truth gets inside the fox news bubble, it's not pretty. >> cenk: that just about explains it. he doesn't like it when apparently when the president agrees with him because he doesn't have anything to yell at him over. now let's go to roger ailes book. president obama had a secret meeting with ailes before his first campaign, and here's a quote from the book. ailes didn't deny that hannity was anti-obama. he simply told the candidate not to worry about it. he said nobody who watches

sean's show is going to vote for you any way. he has got a point doesn't he. >> certainly not after the lies and distortions that we hear from sean hannity every night. but look, what you're seeing with this book coming out is roger ailes effort to try to get ahead of his legacy and try to create a new bubble around his role in kind of shaping the republican party and of course his role creating fox news. >> cenk: and there is another biography coming out that is not going to be glowing, right? is this bringing zeb chafetz to try to beat down what is in the other biography. >> it certainly looks that way right? an award winning reporter has been working on the ailes biography for some time. highways been denied access, and it was only at that time that roger ailes decided to work with david chafetz on the biography

that he started. and so it does start to look like roger ailes is concerned about what is coming out concerned about his legacy, sort of a long, off-putting record that he probably should be worried about how it's shaped. >> cenk: when we see that quote about hannity, here is a guy who ran on fair and balance. the whole network with that slogan. is he basically admitting, of course, i'm kidding, of course we're not fair and balanced? >> well, yeah, look, he's acknowledging in those comments that there's a part of that network that is not interested in giving the president a fair shake, giving any progressive frankly, a fair shake. i think that excuse that ailes gives doesn't fly. he's passing himself off as the head of the news network but it's more of a political operation than a news organization. >> cenk: jeremy, even in the other part of the book, the book

that is favorable of him, he thinks that rubio is not that bright, and newt gringrich is a jerk although he uses much more colorful language here. is he trying to find the best candidate for the republican party by weeding those guys out? >> well, look, i think it's passive prologue we can expect roger ailes will spend the next four years trying to find the right candidate for 2016. >> cenk: thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> cenk: one more update on rand paul's filibuster when we return to "the young turks."